M. Night Shyamalan has "done it again." Done what you might ask? He has created a tale where not everything is what it seems and what we fear the most is fear itself. But do not be under the misguided notion that The Village is a horror movie. It is far from a horror movie, as all of Shyamalan's films have been. How this idea that all of his films are scary has infested the minds of moviegoers is beyond me. What Shyamalan creates are highly stylized pieces of art that depict dramas dealing with home and the family. The twists implemented into his films that we as an audience rely on are supplementary, especially now that we are expecting them.

The Village shows us a small and tight-knit community of people who have decided to take up residency in a valley surrounded by woods called Covington. Judging by a gravestone we see at the opening of the film, it is the close of the 19th century. In the woods surrounding this quiet village are strange creatures that have an inexplicable hatred for the color red and have somehow made a pact with the elders of the village to keep the peace, provided the village folk keep hidden the color red and do not enter the woods. But what does it mean for the village when these rules are broken and dead, skinned animals are discovered around town? Worse yet, what is in store when the villagers are asked to leave the town and let these creatures have their valley?

When attending a movie surrounded by this much hype, it is easy to forget that a drama is still a drama and not much action is required. There are no long chase sequences and no battles with the creatures. It is the story of a town in need of healing. The film would have been so much better if it had focused on this instead of meandering around trying to focus on this and then that and trying to gives clues to the story's secrets along the way. I think if I slip a word in here or there, the plot is too easy to give away and you can imply whatever you want, but the main twist of the story is bland and all the other little twists are merely interesting and add to the already huge list of minute details Shyamalan lives for. Yet, the relationship factor of the villagers is incredibly engrossing and one only wishes to experience more with this small group of people and less with other plot elements.

In order for Shyamalan to create this fruitful story of captivating character interaction, he called on the untapped talent of Bryce Dallas Howard to play the lead role of Ivy Walker. She is the daughter of one of the village's founders, and she is blind. Howard, who has had close to no acting experience prior to this role, has molded a character the audiences can love and sympathize with. Portraying a strong blind character while remaining interesting is a difficult task, and there are a few moments when you question her blindness, but she does a good enough job to be believable. The interesting thing, though, is that you may not even realize she's blind until a character makes reference of the fact. Ivy Walker is a pivotal character and helps to further the plot in ways one might be surprised about. She is strong-willed like her father and this will brings about great changes in the village.

Joaquin Phoenix's character, Lucius Hunt, is another characters who wishes to help the village overcome their daily sense of dread. Despite the name that will conjure up images of a vampire-looking blonde from the Harry Potter series, Lucius stands as an example to the town. He is the most courageous member of the village, keeps his emotions to himself, and does not feel the need to constantly speak his mind, unless it is of the utmost importance. Much laughter is brought to the film via his characters lack of typical social interaction and yet, I feel it was not meant to be funny. Phoenix brings as much life to this character as he can and helps to bring about the final twists of fate the audience witnesses.

Also part of this all-star cast is Adrien Brody. Best known for his award winning portrayal of Wladyslaw Szpilman in The Pianist, I personally would prefer to forget his award winning performance and recognize him for his stunning portrayal of Noah Percy in The Village. I find it funny that most people give an even better performance after they have won an Academy Award. This is definitely the case with Brody. I enjoyed his performance as the mentally handicapped Noah so much more than any other performance I have seen him give. It will be overlooked, but I enjoy giving actors I have denounced in the past props when they actually get around to doing a good job with a role.

The rest of the cast is astounding in their respective parts. William Hurt as Ivy's father reminds me a bit too much of Jeff Bridges and I remember having to mentally slap myself for forgetting it was Hurt. Either way, his role was fitting and one of my favorite characters in the film. Sigourney Weaver also does an estimable job as Lucius' mother and I loved how her past film history melted away in this film. I was not thinking of Alien or Ghostbusters, which was refreshing for once. Hurt's relationship with his on-screen daughter and the reserved, but profound interaction between Hurt and Weaver are highlights of this character driven film.

The cast to The Village was a good start, as it's hard to not recognize many of the names in the opening credits, but just because you have good talent, does not mean you can write sloppy dialogue. Throughout the whole film, the dialogue was agonizingly difficult to swallow. It lacked realism despite the poor albeit logical excuse the film gave for it. Too often the audience feels removed from the film instead of becoming one with what they are watching. It is a constant reminder of something that is wrong, and it detracts from the overall quality of the film and ones ability to understand the communication. I know Shyamalan was probably directing them to speak that way, but it had the borderline equivalency of a high school play.

Also, while the film had really great mise-en-scene, sometimes Shyamalan goes a little overboard. One moment in particular is a scene where Lucius is speaking with Ivy on a porch. The shot is an extreme close up of the two of them, but they are not at the center of the shot. Instead, their faces frame the emptiness between them. The fog is rolling over the hillsides, and while beautiful I was expecting something to come lurching from the mist and I felt that detracted from the scene. Also, Shyamalan spends a little bit too much time focusing on imaging, which with a film of this nature comes off as pretentious. For example, let us place a chair in the field with no one else around and let's also focus on how a bucket is placed on the ground. I feel these two scenes in particular, as well as others could have been cut and the movie wouldn't have been as drudgingly slow as it comes off as.

Yet, Shyamalan has overcome an obstacle that many audience members have complained about with other films. There are two scenes where he chooses to use slow motion and it is brilliant, because it emphasizes the scene in a way regular motion couldn't have. We would easily miss a detail or an emotion being evoked would have been lost. He was tactful in his execution to this end.

It really is a shame to say The Village is lacking in many areas. It comes off as pretentious and almost boring at times, despite its unique ability to portray relationships of depth and complexity through ultimately sparse exchanges. I feel the deeper message of the film revolves around suppression and love more so than anything else and if he had focused more on these two elements, the film would have been much more appealing. Being a film student, I enjoyed picking apart the different elements of the film, but even in doing that, it leaves the film as nothing more than a pile of pieces longing to fit together that only barely make a recognizable picture. As much as I'd like to defend him, Shyamalan is on a steady decline, and I think he needs to refocus his energy and incredible style before making another film of unfulfilled promise like The Village.
 

<<<Back